Baron50

I think your numbers are fairly accurate, although it’s hard to tell as to what was in the minds of those that were not required to show their hand. The first night of the ‘85’ strike, only 4 of the 570 were know to have crossed the line. This was absolutely devastating to Ferris, he saw the 570 as the core of his new non-union airline. It also gave the incumbent pilots considerable resolve; they were carefully watching the 570 to see if that group would stand–up against the permanent two tier pay scale, the only remaining negotiating item. Ferris refuse an 11th hour MEC offer for an 8 year merge and the strike began a few minutes later.

Had the 570 not been overwhelmingly unified, the line would have broke and the union leadership would have pulled down the strike . It was clear the “brown -suiters” would not strike for people who would not strike for themselves. The membership was also promised that if we were going to lose, we would not walk over the cliff as CAL had done. Our goal was to go back to work together, and we achieved that 29 days later. Subsequently, the 570 employment issue was thrown into the courts; their seniority finally settled four years later when Rick Dubinsky negotiated their rightful place on the list. Our strike of ‘85’ was the first successful labor action after Reagan fired the controllers, it is a benchmark in labor history and continues to be studied in business schools.

To answer your question, the MEC has lost a lot of institutional memory, No one will ever know the exact number who crossed, their point was that solidarity is essential to any successful labor agenda.

Baron50

Quote:

Friggen UAL ALPA has it's tail between it's legs and is wimpering like a little girl. No Art 8 charges here, lawsuit there - not the same leadership we had in '85 or even under Dubo. Scared is the operative word


Or is Capt W's goal a strike? That is a serious question.

I am missing something here, Dubo was part of the leadership in '85', he was strike chairman.

The problem the UAL-MEC has at this point is a Judge that could fine the union into oblivion and take all the personal wealth of every union representative on the property. She doesn't seem to care about truth or the facts, probably was stuck on a taxiway one time and blames the pilots for every delay she ever endured. Or maybe it was her facist law clerk, I don't think she writes her own decisions.

Does Wallach want to strike?

I doubt it, he was here in "85" and knows the problems, although he also knows how to do it if necessary. Strikes are like nuclear weapons, no one really wins. That is not to say, we should never strike. Without the possibility of a work stoppage management simply does not negotiate. The pilots are the only union that can stop the revenue flow and park the airplanes while their expenses continue. We make the sausages, no sausages no one eats.

The unintended consequence of the court order is that it has taken most of the arrows out of the quill, that leaves a strike as one of the only remaining options.


One other fact to keep in mind, for those truly adverse to a strike, is that once the 30-day cooling off period is over, the company can impose their new contract upon you, no seniority, no grievance, no union, welcome to Ryan Air... Your choice is accept whatever they give you or strike. In that eventuality, it would be best to be ready to walk and have your most experienced leadership in place to run the show.

In any case, the company can, once they are released for self help, just decide to lock-out the union. You see, it works both ways.

BuffaloA10

Minor point here - they know EXACTLY who crossed and when. They know who's leaking our forum stuff. The Master Scab List has been vetted by reps from all the listed MECs. It is accurate. I am 100% sure on this point.

As far as Dubo I was referring to his leadership as MEC Chmn and C2k not '85 (although that was obviously significant as well).

Baron50

Lambourne,

Quote:

First let me say you can cast aspersions about my integrity, you are entitled to your opinion. However, the flip side of that is that I am also entitled to an opinion about you. From what I can read of your postings you are much more suited for the confines of the ALPA forum rather than the general population here at APC. I would highly recommend you return to YOUR forum and the perhaps 15 other fringe group that share your opinions. Of course with that forum being suspended due to a “virus”, you are left to try and perpetuate your skewed logic in a group that is not as myopic as those in the ALPA forum.

Based on what you have written and the terminology you use, it is fairly easy to decipher your identity from what you post on the ALPA forum. You blast those of us on this forum with our pseudonyms, yet yourself don’t sign your post with your name on this forum. That is a touch of irony that I suspect is lost with you.

I guess you are a little upset; that was quite a rant. Let’s see, I am a union thug, a poor pilot, in a fringe group, not living in reality, making false allegations, a Wallach loyalist, a revisionist with skewed logic and hiding behind a screen name. Someone who read that might think you were trying to hurt my feelings.

I know you want me to leave, it is inconvenient when someone actually has the facts, but I really like it here. This is a great place, trying to guess who is who. As I said, I mistook you for one of the politicos, but as it turned out, you are simply a non participant, who is 49 years old, a commuter refugee from PAA or EAL and blames the union for your unfortunate career choices. Oh, I almost forgot, you are a great pilot.

Quote:

In one of your post you made the following statement:
“The union is mandated to represent the entire pilot group”

On this statement we can agree, I only wish ALPA national and our own MEC was following this “mandate” . If the above quote is true, then you must be quite upset about ALPA’s decision to not represent the entire pilot population's wishes in the decision to support Age 65. ALPA polled its members in a straight up and down vote and the majority did not want this change. Also, if the group’s wishes are to be heard, then why did we not get a vote on the suspension of trip trade with open flying?

Age 65 was going to happen no matter what the poll results, ALPA softened the blow by writing the “no return language.” I suppose ALPA could have fought it to the end, but you would be a lot more junior now or furloughed. Reality is that people live longer, the good retirements have disappeared and the ICAO airlines were already flying over age 60. It’s over, you may benefit.

You just don’t get it, let’s try again. Managements, have in the past (our 1991 contract for example) given the unions cash to divide up. As with the bond money, it creates an extremely divisive issue. If the company has such largess in the future, I would suggest the negotiators get something other than cash, maybe work rules, or retirement, etc. Past experience has shown pilots are not a particularly altruistic group when they think someone is getting more than they are getting.

I don’t really care how the bond lawsuit turns out, but that first line of the side letter clearly tied the bond money to the termination of the A-Plan. It should be a nagging concern to the lawyers that some of the bond money went to people who did not have a vested interest in the trust. At the time, the legal people were not concerned, but as we have seen, courts can be troublesome.

I think the UAL-MEC virus is fixed, but because of an increased legal risk, it will likely remain closed. It looks like you and I will have to live with each other for awhile, “I love you man.”

Baron

Lambourne

[quote=Baron50;656698]Lambourne,

At what point are you going to start interjecting some facts? So far you have induced nothing but rhetoric and no facts to back up any of your statements.



Except when we already know who is who.




That is a tremendous amount to glean from what I have written. Were you the guy providing Bush with intelligence on Iraq? Not sure how a career at EAL or PAA could have been considered a "poor" choice years ago. Of course when we finally wind up with the keel in the air and our pilots are looking for jobs, I am sure there will be some blowhard at carrier XX trying to convince them what a bad choice in career they made coming to UAL. If you have not noticed this is not the garden of Eden we are working in. In fact if you listen to Wallach this is an extremely poor place to work, so much so that it would seem people would be crazy to come to work here. So you are in fact working at a "bad career choice" by YOUR own unions assessment.




How would I have been more junior or furloughed without Age 65? Again more ALPA logic that doesn't make any sense.

ALPA choose to take the more generous stance of allowing two over 60 pilots to fly together in domestic operations. That is not allowed under ICAO operations, so it would seem ALPA took a position that actually hurt the majority of the pilot group. Again the fatalistic attitude you have towards the lawsuit and age 65 being things that ALPA has not ability to influence, I can only imagine we are pretty much painted into a corner on Cabotage, taxing of health benefits and all the other issues. For a unionist you seem to have lost your faith in the union to effect change.



Should they have gotten Chickens instead? It was a cash replacement to try and fill the gap of A plan termination. That could not have been replaced with work rules as that is not something you can put in your B-Fund. So you agree it was the ALPA negotiators that screwed up as opposed to Uncle Gleen dropping 550 in the floor as you first suggested?







That is truly surprising....

Your hypocrisy is truly awe inspiring?

L

SOTeric

That monkey ignores the reality-based facts.

1. FACT: I'm on the street, express has my job. There sir is a fact.

You make me sick.

Baron50

Lamborghini,

Quote:

How would I have been more junior or furloughed without Age 65? Again more ALPA logic that doesn't make any sense. ALPA choose to take the more generous stance of allowing two over 60 pilots to fly together in domestic operations.

Well, if the people who already retired came back to work would you have been better off? That was a real possibility and was the subject of various lawsuits. ALPA worked to put the “no return” language into the law that at least softened the consequences of the change. If you think it is necessary to assign blame, look at SWAPA. They were for age 65 from the start and along with various managements, they were instrumental in getting the geezers to fly together. Had every pilot group spoke with one voice on the matter, things may have been different and the age discrimination crowd would have been very happy.

Quote:

At what point are you going to start interjecting some facts? So far you have induced nothing but rhetoric and no facts to back up any of your statements.

Here’s a fact, read Howard’s letter, he is threatening to use the same tactics they used previously to cut sick leave usage. It is just amazing that sick leave has spiked again without any encouragement of ALPA. Maybe he is planning to require a doctor’s note or possibly go back to the Judge. The fact is, ALPA has bent over backwards to comply with the temporary injunction. Nevertheless, it’s hard to convince a pilot, that is about to be furlough and may never be back, not to burn their sick-leave. Howard may be surprised that labor bashing is not as popular this year as last year and that the court is not as friendly toward phony allegations.

Have you wondered why “Cold-hack” and Tilton’s minions have not asked for a permanent injunction? Could it be that sick leave usage has nothing to do with the union? Or, maybe Howard knows they got lucky the first time and doesn’t want any more of their dirty laundry exposed in court. His letter alleges pilots are calling in sick, but no mention of ALPA being responsible. I bet the lawyers love Howard. He just blew their strategy. In any case, he can always go back to secretly video taping people reading the ALPA bulletin boards. That was a very popular program. Maybe he will take a few more hostages…that really scares the peasants.

Sorry if some of this goes over your head.

Baron

Lambourne

So first you tell me that ALPA had no way to stop Age 65 because of ICAO, then you lay the blame on the SWAPA. You are painting a very bleak picture of what ALPA can do for a pilot. What about our sheer numbers out lasting SWAPA. One of the ugly truths is that ALPA chose to take the PAC monies that were being donated to help stave off Age 65 and used those to push the change.

You want to make this about me and what my situation would be had they not been able to stop the 60-65 group from returning. I think it would have been an interesting social experiment to see some of those that are reaping the rewards of timing being bumped and displaced in the return of the 60-65 guys. For me I don't derive my self worth by the airplane of seat that I fly. That is not the case for all and to see some of the loud mouths get a adjustment in lifestyle would have been great comedy.

How has ALPA bent over backwards? Give me an example of something other than posting some drivel on the weekly email? Has ALPA been contacting pilots individually and giving them an awareness briefing like they were doing during the sickout/fuel usage/run late programs? I sure miss those phone calls.....

Had Wallach been something other than a simpleton he could have avoided the lawsuit the first time. We would then be looking at perhaps legal action at this point in time, as you assert that when the courts would be so much more favorable, versus previously. I highly disagree that the case would have prevailed differently based on the evidence and testimony of Wallach and the IRC members.

Have you any clue as to how the court system works? We had a judgment and an appeal and lost both. You are starting to sound a lot like those USAPA pilots and the NIC award. Why accept reality when being a dolt is so much easier.

Not particularly as it doesn't really change the landscape we are operating under. Permanent or temporary, we are still gutted thanks to Wallach's ego.

Well folks like yourself on the forum posted items that you knew were not private. You guys pressed to test and got what you deserved. Also, video of the flight office was born of the stuff that the ALPA guys were doing to other pilots. The company faced lawsuits from the affected pilots that were being assailed. You may be surprised just where you are on video tape other than in operations. If the video was illegal then why hasn't ALPA taken the company to court over that issue? Or is it just one more in the long line of things that ALPA can not do anything about?

If you look closely you will see there is not only a forest, but trees too.

L

IC ALL

...............

Baron50

Lamborghini,

An unfounded allegation, where’s the proof. It seems UPA was pushing this idea before they self destructed. Are you familiar them.

Quote:

You want to make this about me and what my situation would be had they not been able to stop the 60-65 group from returning. I think it would have been an interesting social experiment to see some of those that are reaping the rewards of timing being bumped and displaced in the return of the 60-65 guys. For me I don't derive my self worth by the airplane of seat that I fly. That is not the case for all and to see some of the loud mouths get a adjustment in lifestyle would have been great comedy.

You would take joy in someone’s pain? There is a word for that: “schadenfreude.”

On one thing I will agree, self worth that is determined by an airplane seat is not a laudable attribute, but neither is envy. I am done with age 60, it’s living in the past, time to move on.

Quote:

How has ALPA bent over backwards? Give me an example of something other than posting some drivel on the weekly email? Has ALPA been contacting pilots individually and giving them an awareness briefing like they were doing during the sickout/fuel usage/run late programs? I sure miss those phone calls.....

Because, you never got them from ALPA. You read the company’s allegations and are simply parroting them back. ALPA’s views on fatigue, sick leave, junior manning and pilot pushing are the same today as they were before the injunction. These issues are still outstanding and will be the subject of negotiations or grievances. They are minor issues under the RLA, the judge elevated them as justification to make an anti-labor decision.

Nevertheless, if some of the “about to be furloughed” had not conducted a sort of wildcat strike and then tell the entire world about it on their web site, none of those issues would have justified a trip to court. Even the most anti-union crowd knows that ALPA is not that stupid, but this judge thinks so. What does that tell you about the quality of the rest of her reasoning?

Quote:

Have you any clue as to how the court system works? We had a judgment and an appeal and lost both.

ALPA was not convicted of any unfair labor practice, nor was it fined one single dime. The judge simply gave UAL a temporary injunction until they prove their case for a permanent injunction. Given a lack of tangible evidence, it looks like they don’t have the stomach to go back to court where they will be exposed for endangering the public with their pilot pushing tactics.


This type of legal motion has the lowest threshold of proof. Judges almost automatically allow them in labor cases. The judge did not need to, nor did she, deeply explore the facts… conjecture was good enough for her. Her decision said:Unfortunately, harm did occur. Management used the judge to get a leg up in negotiations by firing our union representatives. It’s an old tactic, maybe Tilton thought it would provoke a pilot response so he could get the judge to financially bust the union. To Wallach’s credit he did not take the bait.

Management, once again is complaining about sick leave usage. And, again this phenomenon resides with the people about to lose their jobs. ALPA had nothing to do with UAL’s dependability problem last year and its hands are clean this year. Tilton can go bellyache to the judge again, but I doubt she will involve herself in the day to day mismanagement of UAL. In fact, she may want to revisit her previous opinion in light of the company’s provocations.

Quote:

You may be surprised just where you are on video tape other than in operations. If the video was illegal then why hasn't ALPA taken the company to court over that issue?

There is no need to go to court over the video taping, it is only one example of their lack of ethics. Their goons also have no problem showing up at your door with a subpoena for your computer or having you followed by the company detectives. Nothing surprises me about Tilton, Tague or McDonalds’s behavior, they are corporate thieves, and in another era they would have been considered pirates.

Fraternally,
Baron50